I had an email dialog with Mr. Youssef in the summer of 2011,
when he sent me an Affidavit
of Truth and some other stuff. I politely declined to cosponsor
his petition, my reason being that I didn't think I could work with
him effectively. I am not sure how to summarize his divorce and
child-custody case, except to simply say (using words found in his
own petition) that his case is "highly conflicted."

Attorney Ed Mosca's name does not appear in the petition
itself, but it does appear in Mr. Youssef's "Summary
of Grievances." Mosca was, and apparently still is, Mr.
Youssef's ex-wife's lawyer. Mosca is also a friend of Speaker Bill
O'Brien, and more to the point he was the House Counsel during
O'Brien's memorable single term as Speaker. He continued to practice
law on the side while he was House Counsel. The events which led to
this petition predated Mosca's service as House Counsel, so he would
have been named even if he wasn't still representing the former Mrs.
Youssef.

Your
Petitioner Representative Luther on behalf of Joshua Youssef
hereinafter presents the following summary of his grievance and
invokes the constitutional authority and duty of the Honorable
House of Representatives pursuant to Articles 31 and 32 to bring
about redress:

Grievance
involving Guardian Ad Litem, Attorney Tracy A. Bernson for filing
a fraudulent complaint with the police, making fraudulent
complaints to the child's therapist, refusing to withdraw for
conflicts of interest, failing to comply with ethical standards
and standards of practice for guardians ad litem, misrepresenting
and omitting facts, assuming roles beyond her professional
capacity, violating certain administrative orders of the court,
refusing to disclose records, filing a fraudulent report with the
department of health and human services, division of children,
youth, and families, publicly misrepresenting Mr. Youssef's family
at a divorce mediation seminar and referring to him as a foreigner
"without the ability to understand American culture,"
refusing to comply with a court order to investigate specific
matters, failing to file a final report with the court, and
reporting Mr. Youssef for stalking when he asked for the final
report and supporting documentation.

Grievance
involving Marital Master Nancy Geiger for alienating the child
from his father without any finding of abuse or neglect,
subsequently ordering Mr. Youssef to finance the reunification
process, issuing sanctions in the absence of any violations of
rules of discovery, misrepresenting discovery supplementation,
creating undue financial burdens, willfully utilizing falsified
testimony, issuing ambiguous orders and refusing to grant requests
for clarification, denying Mr. Youssef due process of law,
refusing to admit certain testimony, failing to maintain decorum
in the court, failing to grant Mr. Youssef sufficient or equal
time in which to present his case, and exhibiting bias and
prejudice against Mr. Youssef.

Grievance
involving Judge Ned Gordon and Judge Brackett Scheffy for
approving Master Geiger's orders without proper oversight or
judicial review, permitting the alienation of a parent-child
relationship without any finding of abuse or neglect, and
approving such alienation and violation of Mr. Youssef's parental
rights based upon mere hearsay of the guardian ad litem.

Grievance
involving Marital Master Leonard Green for unprofessional and rude
behavior and for violating the constitutional right of Mr. Youssef
to due process of law.

Grievance
involving Judge Edwin Kelly, in his capacity as administrative
judge for the family division, for failing to provide adequate
oversight and supervision of marital masters, misrepresenting the
nature of the problems within the judicial branch family division
to the general court and news media, failing to train his staff to
follow the law and protect the constitutional rights of the
litigants and their children, and allowing his administration to
do permanent damage to the families in New Hampshire.

Wherefore,
your
Petitioner prays that the House of Representatives consider this
proposed remedy:

Forward
a complaint against Attorney Tracy A. Bernson from this body to
the guardian ad litem board on behalf of Mr. Youssef.

Introduce
legislation to eliminate any requirement for contracts and
guardian ad litem stipulations.

Introduce
legislation to provide greater supervision and accountability of
guardians ad litem, marital masters, and judges in the circuit
court family division.

Introduce
legislation for the appointment of arbitrators in highly
conflicted cases.

Mr. Youssef sent us the following
five-page summary of his grievance in advance of the February 2, 2012
hearing. I am not necessarily endorsing anything he says in it, nor
am I condoning anything he or the various parties to the case did:

[roman
numerals] refer to footnotes.

"Bethany"
is Mr. Youssef's ex-wife.

The
adjective "unfounded" as used in cases like this merely
means that a particular set of allegations didn't lead to
prosecution or other serious legal action. It doesn't necessarily
prove that the persons who made the unfounded allegations were
guilty of wrongdoing, nor does it always mean that the case
should be closed.

Summary
of Grievances Petition
#26

I am a fit parent[i]
and a good parent. There are scores of people that will testify to
this. I have never been adjudicated unfit. I am also an upstanding
citizen, business owner, job-creator and employer, community
activist, and have absolutely no criminal history whatsoever. I am
known and respected in my community and beyond, and have been
urged by my fellow citizens to run for State Representative
because of my fervor for the constitution and tenacity with regard
to the administration of justice.

I have always had a
wonderful and appropriate parent-child relationship with my son
[son's name redacted] until Feb. 12th, 2011. On that date, at the
hands of the N.H. 6th Circuit Court – Hooksett Family division,
under Marital Master Nancy Geiger, and at the unlawful, unethical,
faulty recommendation of one guardian ad litem, Tracy A. Bernson,
and Judge Brackett L. Scheffy, and with the assistance of Edward
Mosca, Bethany's attorney, all visitation with my son [son's name
redacted] was stripped in scorched earth fashion with no findings
of abuse or neglect. Then on May 20th, my parental rights were
modified and my joint decision making was stripped.

I have not seen my son in
over one year, and this continues to the date of this summary.

In a hearing dated Oct.
29th, 2010 before Leonard Green, I was treated as a second-class
citizen by Green. His demeanor was condescending, disrespectful
and he lacked all of the qualities listed in the Legislature's
statement of purpose defined in N.H. RSA § 490-D:1[ii].

Green fraternized with
Atty. Edward Mosca for several minutes on the record about his
vacation plans and with guardian ad litem Tracy Bernson about a
dinner function. Green generally showed distinct biases against
me throughout the hearing, and wasted valuable court time. I
expressed concern about parental alienation to Green, and he
conferred with Edward Mosca and Tracy Bernson about the topic.
The three simultaneously chuckled and Green exclaimed "ha,
parental alienation, that was the buzz-word of the 1980's,"
to which Edward Mosca laughed and readily concurred. He showed a
complete disregard for the reality of Parental Alienation.[iii]

Green proceeded to ask
me what I do for work. I replied "computers, sir." And
he said you'd better stick with computers, because you don't know
law." And then admonished me to "get a lawyer son."

A short but respectful
disagreement ensued when I questioned Green as to my right to
appear pro se, and he yelled at me telling me that I know nothing
about the history of American Jurisprudence and began to incite
an argument on the topic, on the court record.

It is this petitioner's
opinion that Green should be terminated, as he does not meet the
requirements set out by the legislature in RSA § 490-D:1 and
engages in the abuse of the citizens that appear before him by
leveraging his position of authority on the bench.

Grievance against Tracy A. Bernson, GAL

I have always enjoyed a
proper, appropriate, and joyful relationship with [son's name
redacted], but only until the Hooksett Family Division became
involved. His mother (Bethany) and I were divorced in August, 2006
and we subsequently went through periods of ease and periods of
difficulty in getting along and co-parenting [son's name
redacted]. By and large, things were working, but it was clear to
me that from [son's name redacted]'s declining behavior that there
was something going on at Bethany's house that was inappropriate
with regard to [son's name redacted]

[son's name redacted]
reported to me that his mother told him that she thinks I am
stupid, that his mother told him that I am ruining his life, he
reported to his paternal Grandparents (my parents) "my mom
doesn't like my dad or anyone in his family," he reported to
me that he will have a stepdad soon and he will not need me
anymore because his stepdad is better than his real dad, he
reported to me that he is never going to see me again and doesn't
want to ever see me again and that the Judge will not allow me to
see him ever again, and there are many more instances that I have
entered in my journal and would be happy to provide to the
committee upon request.

Beginning spring and
summer 2010, and ongoing, I encountered innumerable violations of
the GAL ethics rules, state, and federal law, by GAL Tracy A.
Bernson including but not limited to:

Bernson did not
fulfill the court-ordered stipulation that she
authored[iv]:

She did not
investigate the influence of companions of either party on the
child and never even contacted or interviewed my longtime
girlfriend, Julie, with whom [son's name redacted] enjoyed a
wonderful relationship.

She did not
investigate where [son's name redacted] should attend school,
contrary to the stipulation.

She did not interview
school personnel against the ordered stipulation.

She never interviewed
[son's name redacted] on my parenting time and never made a
home visit to my home in Laconia, N.H. contrary to the
stipulation.

She never saw [son's
name redacted] with me in her entire 26-month involvement and
thus could not have seen the context of our relationship
firsthand.

She neglected to
provide me or my lawyers with invoices for her services,
against Superior Court Administrative order 17[v].

She included all of
my communication with her to Bethany, but refused to forward
her communication with Bethany, to me – giving Bethany an
unfair tactical advantage and created an unfair alliance
between Bernson and Bethany.

She
refused to make her GAL file available to me[vi].

She
exceeded court-allotted fees without filing motions to exceed
fees in violation of Superior Court Administrative Order
17[vii].

She never filed a
final report with the Court and did not provide her final
bill on time, in violation of Judicial Branch Administrative
order 2011-03[viii].

When I requested of
her via email to provide a copy of her final report and bill,
she contacted the Dover, N.H. police department and filed a
false police report indicating that I was stalking her. I was
visited at my place of business in Laconia, N.H. by a Laconia
Police Department Commander and served with a "stalking
warning letter." I challenged the letter to both the Dover
and Laconia police departments on multiple grounds including the
fact that she was an appointed officer of the court and had a
fiduciary duty to me, as well as first amendment and other
grounds and both departments declined to take action on her
frivolous and false report.

Bernson falsified a
report with DCYF in mid-December, 2010 alleging inappropriate
touching behavior existed because I was attending to [son's name
redacted]'s hygiene needs in a co-showering context, when he was
6-years old. I admitted the co-showering, but have always denied
and maintained that nothing inappropriate has ever occurred.
DCYF conducted a full, detailed investigation and returned
Bernson's allegations "UNFOUNDED" on February 1st,
2011. Two months later, [son's name redacted]'s psychologist Dr.
Brian Jackson testified that in his expert opinion, "it is
not necessarily inappropriate for a child of [son's name
redacted]'s tender age to co-shower with his father.[ix]"

f. On the same exact
date of February 1st, 2011, Bernson reported to Dr. Brian
Jackson, that she "Fears Dad [Josh]" and this appears
in Dr. Jackson's notes[x]. I have never given Bernson
anything to fear me for, except that I have been committed to
challenging her unethical and unlawful behaviors.

At that very moment,
Bernson reporting this "fear," created a clear
conflict of interest and compromised Bernson's neutrality. She
had a duty to recuse herself for conflict of interest, yet,
Bernson never recused herself[xi].

Instead, just ten days
after she reported that she is fearful of me, she issued a GAL
report for a hearing on February 11th, 2011 which included, but
is not limited to, the following "recommendations" to
the Court. All of which were adopted by the Court at the
recommendation of Marital Master Nancy J. Geiger to signing
Judge Brackett L. Scheffy. The orders are wholly unlawful under
federal and N.H. state jurisprudences.

"No further
unsupervised visitation with Dad should occur until it is
therapeutically appropriate for [son's name redacted].
Therapeutically appropriate means [son's name redacted] is able
and willing to regularly engage his Dad in a therapeutic
environment, with the assistance of Brian Jackson, PhD, so that
trust and respect is re-established. Under no circumstances
should [son's name redacted] be exposed to an in-person meeting
with Dad until [son's name redacted] is able and ready to be so
exposed. He absolutely should not be forced to do so.[xii]"

"During this
period, [son's name redacted] should be encouraged to speak his
mind to his Dad, without fear of consequences, such as being
yelled at or punished.[xiii]"

"In the
meantime, [son's name redacted] and Dad may have telephone
contact once per day, at 7PM... Under no circumstances should
[son's name redacted] be questioned about whether he loves or
misses Dad during these telephone calls..." This is a
serious infringement on my free speech, and is a fundamentally
antifamily recommendation.

"Dad shall
enroll in a parenting course, and show by transfer of
knowledge, that he has developed better parenting skills for a
child [son's name redacted]'s age...[xiv]"

Dad shall enroll in
therapy, with an individual therapist, to address his anger
toward Mom[xv].

Bernson is not an
expert on child psychology, child development, forensic
psychology, child education, individual or family therapy. She
is merely a "fact finder" under N.H. law. Her
recommendations constitute extra-percipient, improper conduct
and are not based on any expert findings, but merely her own
opinion.

At a private seminar
on mediation conducted in Mid-May, 2011 by Atty. John Cameron of
Laconia, NH, Tracy Bernson, an attendant of that seminar,
proclaimed that she had a "very difficult case involving a
local Egyptian family who, as foreigners, lacked the ability to
understand American culture." What Bernson didn't realize
is that a good friend of this Petitioner was also an attendant
of the same seminar and he reported Bernson's prejudicial remark
to your petitioner. Bernson misrepresented Joshua Youssef and
revealed private information concerning her involvement in the
Youssef matter in a public forum.

Further, Bernson
failed to recognize that your Petitioner, Joshua F. Youssef was
born in Laconia, N.H. in 1976, holds citizenship only in the
United States, and has never lived outside of the United States
and not only understands American culture, but also well
understands American law and jurisprudence.

Bernson was the
impetus for the destruction of my relationship with [son's name
redacted], which was fully supported by the Family Court under
Marital Master Geiger, and Judges Gordon and Scheffy.

It is this petitioner's
request that disciplinary action be recommended by this committee
to the Guardian ad Litem board concerning this guardian ad litem,
Tracy A. Bernson.

The February 11th hearing
was noticed improperly and was scheduled at my ex parte request to
deal only with Bethany's interference with my custody and
parenting time with [son's name redacted]. It was never noticed as
a hearing that would alter my parental rights and
responsibilities, and was conducted as "offers of proof."
I was afforded no such notice of any other hearing matter, and
thus was unable to defend.

The
following non-noticed matters were heard on Feb 11th, 2011:[xvi],
[xvii]

The GAL sought an
injunctive-type restraining order suspending all parenting time
between father and child, and otherwise having the force and
effect of a termination of parental rights[xviii].

The Court unlawfully
modified a long-standing parenting plan from August, 2006 and
none of the RSA 461-A:11 conditions were met[xix], and
the Judicial officials acted under color of law. The complete
disunification between father and child is a modification of a
standing parenting plan in fashion and in function.

The Court heard
matters concerning discovery issues which were not on the notice
of hearing.

The Court issued
orders implementing Bernson's totally unlawful and eccentric
recommendations (above) that she was not qualified to make,
lacking expert credentials and in violation of applicable law.
This was done at the recommendation of Marital Master Nancy J.
Geiger, with absolutely no findings of abuse or neglect,
actually, after allegations of the same were declared
"UNFOUNDED" by DCYF.

I had absolutely no means
to defend myself as my former lawyers and I were caught
completely by surprise by this improperly conducted and
un-noticed hearing.

Judge Brackett Scheffy
was not a regular signing judge and his name rarely appears on
orders in this matter, however he signed and certified that he
had read the recommendations of Marital Master Nancy Geiger and
that she applied the correct legal standard to the Feb. 11th,
2011 order.

This cannot be true,
and I believe that in light of the content and context of the
issue(s) and surrounding facts, that Judge Scheffy did not read,
evaluate, consider, or even question the inaccuracies and legal
deficiencies of Geiger's recommendations.

I find it certain that
Judge Scheffy engaged in perfunctory "rubber stamping"
of orders as he could not possibly have read and acquainted
himself with the 2000 page court record on the same day that the
hearing was conducted and Geiger presented her recommendations.

Judge Scheffy, though
only one player in this tragic scenario is ultimately
responsible for the deprival of this petitioner's rights and the
destruction of the parent-child relationship.

It is amazing the
destruction that can be caused by a single signature.

This petitioner
believes that grounds exist to investigate Judge Scheffy for
impeachment for malpractice and maladministration.

Every single Court
order (approx. 20) that followed the order of Feb. 11, 2011
relied upon and/or incorporated that order is de facto unlawful
and represents a perpetuation of the deprival of this
petitioner's due process and fundamental human rights and
liberties.

Petitioner was not
afforded equal time to present his case in chief. Explicitly, I
was not even permitted to start my case in chief until 1:00pm on
the second and final day of the final hearing. This only left 3
hours out of 14 hearing hours to present a complex defense, to a
set of zany allegations, and gravely restricted my ability to
call witnesses in my defense.

Master Nancy Geiger
refused to accept as evidence a personal telephone call journal
(of calls between my son and me) that would have substantial
evidentiary weight and significance, though it complied with the
rules of evidence and was authored by me, and I was in the
witness chair testifying to its authorship and authenticity.
Geiger commented that she was not going to admit it as an
exhibit because she didn't believe that I could possibly have
created a journal with such detail. This violates the rules of
evidence and the N.H. Constitution[xx].

Master Nancy Geiger
continually exhibited a condescending tone and attitude toward
me and a longstanding bias; I believe that it represents
reprisal for this petitioner challenging the legal sufficiency
of her work.

Master Nancy Geiger
failed to maintain decorum in the courtroom and routinely
allowed cacophonous outbursts from Bethany's attorney, Edward
Mosca, including one particularly offensive outburst to my
[former] attorney when Edward Mosca exclaimed in a heightened
volume and exacerbated tone "for Christie sake Chrisf"
Geiger did not reprimand or even comment at this exclamation.

The rules of the
[then] Judicial Branch Family Division were ignored and the
proceedings were best characterized by the word "circus."

Geiger permitted Atty.
Edward Mosca to testify, when the rules of civil procedure
forbid an attorney from testifying.

Geiger relied on known
false statements of the guardian ad litem, Tracy Bernson, during
the hearing.

Geiger's orders
represent a longstanding pattern of "safety" and
"ambiguity" leaving the parties in a state of flux and
suspension and not knowing the boundaries of permitted conduct.
Motions for clarification were ignored in some instances and
were untimely in other instances.

The final order on
parenting dated May 20th, 2011 contains innumerable errors of
fact, and errors of law, which I would be delighted to expound
upon to the committee.

Geiger removed joint
decision making contrary to the Muchmore
doctrine.

Judge Edward Gordon
(whom I have never met), signed and certified the narrative
order which is rife with inaccuracies unlawful enactments, in
his usual "rubber stamping" fashion, However, the
parenting plan that the court fashioned, was never certified by
the judge under N.H. RSA § 490-D:9. The parenting plan does not
comport with state law[xxi].

In an order dated June
15th, 2011, the court referred to Joshua as "Joseph"
and to [son's name redacted] as "Joshua." This clear
error in nomenclature may appear at first blush as an innocent
scrivener's error, but in fact represents a much larger problem:
Judge Edward Gordon certified that he read and agreed that the
law was appropriately applied to the facts. However, the facts
were not correct, because the actors were not even properly
identified. This is prima facie evidence that Judge Edward
Gordon engaged in the practice of "rubber stamp ordering"
which is a violation of the Judge's oath of office, and is a
violation of sworn certification that appears on the bottom of
the order that he signed.

Though only two
examples have been provided, and many more exist, I believe that
Judge Edward Gordon should be investigated for impeachment for
malpractice and maladministration under the N.H. Constitution.

It is this
petitioner's opinion that Nancy Geiger should be terminated
immediately, as she does not meet the requirements set out by
the legislature in RSA § 490-D:1 and engages in the abuse of
the citizens that appear before her by leveraging her position
of authority on the bench, by improperly restricting and
admitting evidence, and then by misapplying the law to the
facts. She is a grave danger to the citizens before her and in
my experienced opinion; she is an enemy of freedom, an opponent
of family, and a disgrace to the Judicial branch of the New
Hampshire government.

Grievance Against Circuit Court Administrative Judge
Edwin Kelly

Judge Edwin Kelly has a
duty to ensure that his Circuit Court and all Judicial Officers
and employees operate according to the Constitution, State
Legislative Enactments and Law, Rules of Court, and other legal
and ethical regulations.

Judge Kelly has the
authority to discipline, censure, or terminate marital masters,
who are "at-will" employees of the Judiciary when it
is brought to his attention that they have committed violations
of the rights and liberties of the citizens whom they "serve."

I contacted Judge
Kelly by means of a lengthy letter delivered by fax, email, and
U.S. Mail describing in grave detail a "handful" of
injustices I have suffered, yet Judge Kelly responded that he
could do nothing. In fact, he could do something, but chose not
to which has led to an ongoing denial of my civil rights under
Title 42 Sections 1983, 1985, 1986, et al.

I believe that Edwin
Kelly's actions and inactions have exposed the state to serious
civil rights liability.

I believe that grounds
exist to investigate Judge Edwin Kelly for impeachment
proceedings under the N.H. Constitution for maladministration of
the Circuit Court of the State of New Hampshire, his
maladministration causing permanent and serious harm to the
citizens of the state of New Hampshire, namely this Petitioner,
among the many more, both silent and vociferous.

Further Grievance against Atty. Edward Mosca

This
petitioner reserves the right to supplement this grievance
petition or to file a new petition for redress of grievance
against Atty. Edward C. Mosca [nonspecific allegations deleted]

Conclusion

I have
lost absolutely all faith in the Circuit Court Family Division of
N.H. I am certain that I cannot obtain justice there because of
its endemic and intrinsic maladies, biases, flaws, and systemic
inconsistencies with both State Law and well-established case law
and principles of American Jurisprudence. There are serious
problems in N.H. Family Courts.

This
petitioner wishes that this was an isolated incident, however
after three years of entrenchment in the family court, with a
pattern consistent with abuse of this litigant (and many others),
I have come to know better. Only the legislature can fix these
problems — and it should act quickly and swiftly before someone
less resilient snaps and does something even more rogue and rash
than Thomas Ball did on the Cheshire Superior Courthouse steps.

My
relationship with my son, and my rights were intact before the
Court became involved and stripped them from me. I have had my
civil rights violated, have been financially and emotionally
destroyed, and I still have not seen my son in over one year. The
damage that was caused by the stroke of a pen, may take decades to
repair, if any repair is even possible.

Respectfully
submitted.

Joshua F. Youssef

Footnotes (corresponding to
[roman numerals] in main body of text):

In
Re Guardianship of Reena D., N.H. Supreme Court, 12/28/2011—
"We have also ruled that fit parents are those who have not
been adjudicated unfit"

N.H.
RSA § 490-D:1 - "The goals of the family division are
the respectful treatment of all citizens by justices, marital
masters, and other family division staff, the prompt and fair
resolution of family issues by justices and marital masters
specially selected and trained to deal effectively with such
issues, the use of alternative dispute resolution to reduce the
adversarial nature of proceedings involving families."

In
the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630 (2011)—"Across
the country, the great Weight of authority holds that conduct by
one parent that tends to alienate the child's affections from the
other is so inimical to the child's Welfare as to be grounds for
a denial of custody to, or a change of custody from, the parent
guilty of such conduct."

GAL
Stipulation, available upon request

Superior
Court Administrative order 17, Paragraph 8: GALs are required
to send copies of their bills to the parties irrespective of
whether their services are being paid for privately or by the GAL
Fund.

Ross
v. Gadwah, 131 N.H. 391, (1988)—"Communications
between a guardian ad litem and a minor child are not
privileged... Parents' rights of due process therefore mandate
that they have an opportunity to counter evidence that a
fact-finder will rely on in reaching a judgment determining their
child's fate. Therefore, none of the information the guardian
gathers can be shielded from discovery by the attorney-client
privilege."

Superior
Court Administrative Order 17, Paragraph 4: "The maximum
fee shall not be exceeded Without prior approval of the Court,
after hearing with the parties and the GAL present. Any request
to exceed the maximum shall be filed with the Clerk of Court in
Writing and shall set forth in detail the reasons for the request
and the amount by which the maximum is to be exceeded."

Judicial
Branch Administrative order 2011-03—"Guardians ad
Litem in any such pending matter are directed to conclude their
Work and provide a report and final bill to the court no later
than June 1, 2011."

DCYF
Closing Letter "UNFOUNDED" available upon request

Psychologist
notes available upon request

GAL
Ethics Rule 503.06(a) - "Seek to decline appointment in
a proceeding where he or she has a present or prior personal,
professional, business or legal relationship with any party
involved in the proceeding that would adversely impact upon his
or her ability to perform the functions of a guardian ad litem in
accordance with these rules and in accordance with any
requirements of the appointing court."

Placing
the reunification in the hands of an alienated 6-year old child

Removing
my right to parent my child

Reno
v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)—"'the best
interests of the child' is not the legal standard that governs
parents' or guardians' exercise of their custody: So long as
certain minimum requirements of child care are met, the interests
of the child may be subordinated to the...interests of the
parents or guardians themselves."

No
parental arbitration provision exists in N.H. family law which
predicates visitation and parental rights upon completion of
parenting classes, therapy, or other seminars.

Douglas
v. Douglas, 143 N.H. 419 (1999), the N.H. Supreme Court
held: "an elementary and fundamental requirement of due
process is notice reasonably calculated, under all the
circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of
the action and afford them an opportunity to present their
objections."

Duclos
v. Duclos, 134 N.H. 42 (1991)—the N.H. Supreme Court
held: "notice meant that the notice sent to a litigant must
be 'reasonably calculated to give the defendant actual notice of
the issue and the hearing.'"

Cir.Ct.Fam.Div.
Rule 1.28(D) states that "Requests for restraining
orders against any person should not be presented by offers of
proof."

Part
First, Art. 15 of the N.H. Constitution—"Every subject
shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to
himself; to meet the Witnesses against him face to face, and to
be fully heard in his defense..."

N.H. RSA § 490-D:9
- "All recommendations of marital masters shall be
signed by a judge. The judge signing such recommendations shall
certify that he or she has read the recommendations and agrees
that the marital master has applied the correct legal standard to
the facts determined by the marital master."

On
July 24, 2012, we finally voted on the Youssef petition. The vote was
8-2 with 3 abstentions. Kevin
Avard and two other members chose to abstain because they had
endorsed Josh's
State Senate campaign I have reason to believe that Youssef
himself wrote the majority report, and he did a good job, too. Most
of the draft reports were riddled with errors, but Youssef's was
error-free and needed few if any revisions. We Democrats made this
report as bland as we could, and it got printed with relatively
little hassle. The reports appeared in the August
9, 2012 House Calendar:

Redress of Grievances
Committee

Petition 26
YoussefFounded With Recommendations

After hearing the testimony
of the Petitioner, reviewing the documentation and supplements,
and having received no responsive testimony, substantive
documentation, or other evidence from any of those cited
officials, the Committee finds that the Petitioner was wrongly
denied by the Family Division all visitation with his child
contrary to N.H. law and his constitutional rights for
approximately 13 months. This wrongful situation was due to:
Guardian ad Litem Tracy Bernson who:

Made unlawful
recommendations to the Court in her 2/11/11 guardian ad litem
report including suspension of all visitation with his son with
no findings of fact that it would be detrimental to the child and
with no findings of abuse or neglect contrary to RSA 461-A:2;

Posited as fact the
psychological condition of the minor child without being an
expert herself, and with no expert psychological findings or
report, and apart from any testimony that is the product of
reliable principles and methods contrary to RSA 516:29-a;

Recommended the
imposition of extrajudicial conditions on reunification contrary
to RSA 461-A:2, RSA 461-A:6 and contrary to the presumption that
fit parents are presumed to act in the best interests of their
children;

Recommended unlawful
prior restraint of Petitioner's free speech by restricting him
from talking with his son about the subject of love (see RSA
461-A:6 I(a);

Recommended as a
condition to see his son, that Petitioner enroll in a parenting
class and separately in individual therapy which is contrary to
the Troxel presumption that "fit parents are presumed to act
in the best interests of their children," (Troxel v.
Granville, 530 US 57);

Did not complete the
duties ordered by the Court in her stipulation;

Failed to comply with
Family Division Administrative Order 2011-03 by not filing a
final report with the Court and not submitting her final bill by
the deadline;

Failed to comply with
Supreme Court Administrative Order 17 by exceeding her
court-ordered fee-maximum and not requesting a hearing to do so;

Fraudulently filed a
stalking warning letter with the Dover/Laconia police departments
in response to pro se Petitioner's court-related correspondence
for actions that do not qualify as stalking;

Failed to comply with
GAL Ethics Rule 503.06(a)(1) by not recusing herself as requested
after reporting that she was "fearful" of Petitioner;
and,

Improperly recommended
suspension of all of Petitioner's visitation and parental rights
with only allegations, but no findings of abuse or neglect per
RSA 461:A-5 III.

The Committee finds that
Marital Master Nancy Geiger also contributed to this when she:

Approved a parenting
plan that does not comport with N.H. RSA 490-D:9.

The Committee finds that
Marital Master Leonard Green also contributed when he denied
Petitioner due process of law by declining to issue orders on
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and; finally, that
Administrative Judge Edwin Kelly failed to provide adequate
oversight and supervision of marital masters and judges in the
Hooksett Family Division by permitting ongoing malfeasance to
occur after Petitioner notified him of it in a lengthy letter to
which same judge, with the power to fire Marital Masters at will,
responded that he had no authority to intervene.

The Committee therefore
recommends that legislation be introduced to so amend our laws as
to:

Make clear that there
is a presumption that fit parents will act in the best interests
of their children;

Provide greater
supervision and accountability of guardians ad litem, marital
masters, and judges in the circuit court family division;

Permit courts to
deviate from equal parenting time distribution only in cases
where there is clear and convincing evidence of abuse or neglect
by one or both parents or it is requested by party receiving the
lesser proportion of time;

The Petitioner is a party to a highly conflicted divorce. He
submitted many documents and testified for eight hours (spread out
over four committee hearings). The most important document is a
May 20, 2011 court order which modified the parenting plan for the
one child of the Petitioner and his ex-wife. In a case summary
submitted along with his petition, he stated that the order
"contains innumerable errors of fact, and errors of law,
which I would be delighted to expound upon to the committee."
After hearing the Petitioner's testimony and reviewing his
documentation, the Minority is convinced that the May 20, 2011
order was legal, factual and proper.

The Petitioner asked for the impeachment of numerous officials
involved in his case. The Minority sees no need to impeach any of
them: these officials were acting legally and in good faith. He
also asked to have the legislature forward a complaint against
Attorney Tracy Bernson to the Guardian ad Litem Board. The
Minority feels that this would be unwise for constitutional
reasons, and also because of the specific circumstances of the
case. The Petition suggested a variety of legislative proposals,
some of which have been actively considered. In the Minority's
opinion, the Petitioner shed little if any light on these
proposals.